emmanuel reynaud holy virility the social construction of masculinity

it often replaces 'bitch' or 'whore'; it sounds undeniably more
elegant, and offers a little scientific endorsement to the speaker.
What is more, satyriasis and nymphomania express two
comparable disorders, which manifest themselves in a
condition of permanent excitement which can never be
satisfied: 'In the case of satyriasis and nymphomania, sexual
excitation does not subside.' [4]
[64 / Holy virility]
In other words, the man suffering from satyriasis runs
indefatigably after any sexual relationship in the hope of finding
satisfaction, but always remains as frustrated as he was before.
In fact, satyriasis is far more common than nymphomania. It can
be found, in more or less pathological forms, in places as
diverse as the conjugal bed, the adulterer's chamber, the
doorway of the brothel, the corner of a dark street, the seats of a
smoky nightclub― and, whatever the 'score' chalked up, and
subsequently bragged about, the man will still be as sexually
unfulfilled as before.
Man's 'normal' sexuality does not usually have much to do with
fulfilment: it is the screen in the fight man has with his penis.
The struggle is sometimes fierce, and the outcome is never
certain as the spectre of impotence is a permanent threat. If one
understands words in the context of prevailing ideas, their
meaning becomes clear: erection is not a delicate warmth which
spreads from the penis through the rest of the body, nor a
pleasant swelling of the penis when the senses are receptive to
voluptuousness. Man decides otherwise: erection is the symbol
of his power, the assertion of his potency, and its absence is
simply his impotence. He makes his penis what it is not, he tries
to control it and will not allow it to function to its own rhythm,
and he is astonished when it sometimes plays dirty tricks on
him.
Man's pleasure usually has so little to do with sexuality itself
that it would not be too exaggerated to consider his lack of
erection. his 'impotence'. as his normal sexual state. Reich,
wondering how his patients imagined their pleasure, in
particular when masturbating, was struck by the discovery that:
«Not in a single patient was the act of masturbation
accompanied by the phantasy of experiencing pleasure in
the normal sexual act. At best, the phantasy was that they
'were having sexual intercourse'. On closer investigation, it
turned out that the patients neither visualised nor felt
anything concrete in this phantasy. This expression of
'having sexual intercourse' was used mechanically; in most
cases it covered the desire to 'prove oneself a man', to rest
in the arms of a woman (usually of an older woman), or to
'penetrate a woman'. In brief, it might mean anything
except genital sexual pleasure.» [5]
[The myth of the phallic orgasm / 65]